Another NHL expansion team (s)?

[inkman]

Not a lot of bite to this but I need someone to convince me that NHL expansion isn’t just the current owners looking for an ATM (not that kind PA).  Cash poor league always looking for cash.  
 

https://x.com/darrendreger/status/1702418148127805690?s=46&t=MlZqQ72jOicGxFUY54ofpA

[inkman]

☹️

[klos1963]

How does it make financial sense to spend $2 billion on an expansion fee. Are teams really so profitable that to pay that amount is a good idea?

[tom webster]

25 minutes ago, klos1963 said:

How does it make financial sense to spend $2 billion on an expansion fee. Are teams really so profitable that to pay that amount is a good idea?

This is why the notion that these teams lose money laughable. Some make more than others, maybe even a lot more, but none of them are actually losing anything. 

[Night Train]

Sabres were valued at 635 Mil a year ago. Arizona was at the bottom at 435 M.  

Actual revenue is a whole other story. Color me very skeptical. 

 

[shrader]

2 hours ago, inkman said:

Not a lot of bite to this but I need someone to convince me that NHL expansion isn’t just the current owners looking for an ATM (not that kind PA).  Cash poor league always looking for cash.  
 

https://x.com/darrendreger/status/1702418148127805690?s=46&t=MlZqQ72jOicGxFUY54ofpA

Why do they have to be cash poor in order to look for cash?

[Hank]

I love it. I hope we get to 36 teams by the next decade. I think a bigger American footprint and growing the game is good for the league. 

[GASabresIUFAN]

https://syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/10089275-nhl-deputy-commissioner-league-open-to-atlanta-return-expansion-not-imminent.amp.html
 

 

[pi2000]

Re-locate the Coyotes to the expansion city.

[klos1963]

10 hours ago, pi2000 said:

Re-locate the Coyotes to the expansion city.

They will be relocating to Mesa, AZ

[klos1963]

10 hours ago, pi2000 said:

Re-locate the Coyotes to the expansion city.

That's not expansion, and would not require the $2 billion fee. That's one reason the league doesn't like relocation.

[RochesterExpat]

If the league expands to 36 teams, the playoff format should be addressed. The league adopted a 16 team playoff when there were 26 teams. We went from 62% of teams making the postseason to 50% today. Expanding to 36 will drop that to 44%. Playoff hockey is relevant for growing the fa--looks at audience--well, you know.

More importantly, the fewer teams that make the post-season, the more we will see teams 'tanking' during the season. It's an uncomfortable truth, but it's a truth nonetheless. 

Of course, the NHL doesn't have to expand the post-season. Looking at the other leagues:

NBA - 16 of 30 teams make the playoffs - 53%
NFL - 14 of 32 - 44%
MLB - 12 of 30 - 40%

But I still think if the league expands to 36 teams, it's in the best interest of the league to expand post-season participation as well. My personal idea that makes the post-season a little more interesting:

14 teams are automatically berthed (7 each conference).

Under the current format, the bottom seeds from each conference will play whatever team they edged out in the standings in a best of three "play-in" series, but retain home-ice advantage. The winners of those series will be the 15th and 16th seeds for the best of seven, 16-team playoff format.

This way the teams in the "playoffs" is expanded to 18 (maintaining the current 50% participation) without grossly altering the format of the playoffs or substantially lengthening them. It also gives teams that finished in the top 14 an extra week to recover before the post-season starts which might incentivize some teams late in the season.
 

[PASabreFan]

29 minutes ago, RochesterExpat said:

If the league expands to 36 teams, the playoff format should be addressed. The league adopted a 16 team playoff when there were 26 teams. We went from 62% of teams making the postseason to 50% today. Expanding to 36 will drop that to 44%. Playoff hockey is relevant for growing the fa--looks at audience--well, you know.

More importantly, the fewer teams that make the post-season, the more we will see teams 'tanking' during the season. It's an uncomfortable truth, but it's a truth nonetheless. 

Of course, the NHL doesn't have to expand the post-season. Looking at the other leagues:

NBA - 16 of 30 teams make the playoffs - 53%
NFL - 14 of 32 - 44%
MLB - 12 of 30 - 40%

But I still think if the league expands to 36 teams, it's in the best interest of the league to expand post-season participation as well. My personal idea that makes the post-season a little more interesting:

14 teams are automatically berthed (7 each conference).

Under the current format, the bottom seeds from each conference will play whatever team they edged out in the standings in a best of three "play-in" series, but retain home-ice advantage. The winners of those series will be the 15th and 16th seeds for the best of seven, 16-team playoff format.

This way the teams in the "playoffs" is expanded to 18 (maintaining the current 50% participation) without grossly altering the format of the playoffs or substantially lengthening them. It also gives teams that finished in the top 14 an extra week to recover before the post-season starts which might incentivize some teams late in the season.
 

Come on, Roch, put some meat on the bone! You showed us what you're capable of and THIS is the sequel?!

Edited September 15, 2023 by PASabreFan

[SwampD]

14 hours ago, Hank said:

I love it. I hope we get to 36 teams by the next decade. I think a bigger American footprint and growing the game is good for the league. 

I think that would be awful. I want AHL players playing in the AHL.

[Hank]

39 minutes ago, SwampD said:

I think that would be awful. I want AHL players playing in the AHL.

I think that's a fair point of view. I haven't noticed an appreciable degradation of quality hockey league wide with the expansion of Seattle and Vegas. Their success in short order has really impacted my view on this subject.

[SwampD]

8 minutes ago, Hank said:

I think that's a fair point of view. I haven't noticed an appreciable degradation of quality hockey league wide with the expansion of Seattle and Vegas. Their success in short order has really impacted my view on this subject.

Yeah, but the Sabres are just now getting NHL level guys after a decade and there are quite a few bad teams. It’s as thinned out as I would ever want to see it.

The NHL could expand in the past because there were new talent pools that opened up. Are there any left? Maybe if China had this huge league that we didn’t know about and we could Mogilny someone from it. Otherwise, I just don’t see it.

[Hank]

5 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Yeah, but the Sabres are just now getting NHL level guys after a decade and there are quite a few bad teams. It’s as thinned out as I would ever want to see it.

The NHL could expand in the past because there were new talent pools that opened up. Are there any left? Maybe if China had this huge league that we didn’t know about and we could Mogilny someone from it. Otherwise, I just don’t see it.

Adding one team in Atlanta would be an additional 23 players in the league, and one additional callup for most teams. For Buffalo specifically it could mean losing Ollie or Greenway and replacing them with Savoie or Kulich. I'm not knowledgeable enough about youth hockey in Europe and Russia to have an opinion, but I do believe that the quality of player coming up through the American ranks has produced a much higher percentage of quality NHL players than a decade ago. 

[Hawerchuk]

Atlanta failed twice so that is a hard NO.

Houston? I'd pass on that one but I guess it could be a Dallas Stars rival?

Quebec? I'd take that in consideration because they love hockey and would do well.

Kansas City? Definitely NO!

[Hank]

6 minutes ago, Hawerchuk said:

Atlanta failed twice so that is a hard NO.

Houston? I'd pass on that one but I guess it could be a Dallas Stars rival?

Quebec? I'd take that in consideration because they love hockey and would do well.

Kansas City? Definitely NO!

Quebec also failed previously. 

[Hawerchuk]

3 minutes ago, Hank said:

Quebec also failed previously. 

While this is true, one could argue Quebec has a passion for hockey unlike the other three I mentioned.

[Hank]

Just now, Hawerchuk said:

While this is true, one could argue Quebec has a passion for hockey unlike the other three I mentioned.

Without a doubt. Quebec has more hockey passion than all those cities combined!  Unfortunately, passion isn't enough. 

[RochesterExpat]

 

2 hours ago, SwampD said:

I think that would be awful. I want AHL players playing in the AHL.

1 hour ago, SwampD said:

Yeah, but the Sabres are just now getting NHL level guys after a decade and there are quite a few bad teams. It’s as thinned out as I would ever want to see it.

The NHL could expand in the past because there were new talent pools that opened up. Are there any left? Maybe if China had this huge league that we didn’t know about and we could Mogilny someone from it. Otherwise, I just don’t see it.

This is a good argument. I understand the talent pool point (Mexico would be an interesting expansion opportunity in my eyes), but that assumes we've maximized the talent pool inside the current markets. Specifically to the United States here is the recent participation rate (bear in mind the players reflected in this chart would only now be breaking into the NHL):

Here is an article discussing the growth from 2003 to 2013: https://unitedstatesofhockey.com/2013/09/13/hockeys-growth-in-the-united-states-2003-2013/

In 1990-91, USA Hockey’s national membership stood at 195,125 players. In just 10 years, that number ballooned to 439,140 in 2000-01. Just last season, USA Hockey boasted 510,279 members, the second most all-time and just under 1,000 less than the record 511,178 set in 2011-12.

This corresponds with the increase in US players in the NHL.

Logic suggests the talent exists but it's inefficiently utilized since youth participation is incredibly low. For all we know, the next Connor McDavid is currently sitting in front of a Nintendo Switch instead of skating. And there is a reason for that: the cost of hockey (also the NHL is awful at marketing but that's a different story).

The biggest issue with young players playing hockey is simply cost. If we want to increase the talent in the NHL, or have enough talent to expand the league, we need to expand youth participation in hockey. This creates a larger pool from which to draw players to more competitive leagues.

I have an eight year old son in his second year of hockey and his 18 game and 42 practice season cost us $1,200 this year (it's $1,400 if you use the payment plan). That's just for House 8U and the price only goes up as he gets older or if he plays travel. It ignores the additional cost of equipment. It ignores the costs for tournaments and the hotel stays during the tournaments. It ignores any additional training camps or skills camps. 

In order to defray costs, I help coach. That saves us $450 a season (worst hourly wage ever). So, even as the team's head coach, it still costs us at least $750 a season. Keep in mind, I have to pay for a USA Hockey membership to coach ($46) so I'm only saving $394. That also assumes that my time spent before and after practices and games responding to parents or preparing for our next ice time is free.

There is a reason the sport is predominately upper-middle class white kids from the suburbs. Who else can afford it?

Now, team organizations and the NHL do invest in growing the sport, but we don't necessarily see how well that money translates into growth and I suspect I know why. As far as I know, all the teams have a learn-to-skate/learn-to-play program where it's free to participants and gets kids on the ice for the first time. I think it's four ice sessions here and they provide the equipment which you have an option of purchasing after at a discounted price. From personal experience, a lot of parents put their kids into the program, their kids love it, but once the parents see the cost of signing up their kid for a full season, the hockey dream ends in sticker shock.

It goes beyond just the cost of playing hockey. We live 45 miles one way from the nearest ice rink (our home rink). That means that every week I am driving 180 miles to coach practices. Some of our regular season games are 92 miles from my house--once again, that's one way. Even just using our home rink for everything, that's 5,400 miles a season. At 30 miles per gallon, that's 180 gallons of gas and, at $3.29 a gallon, it means I'm spending at least $600 each year additionally just in gas.

There is a reason my son is the only student in his entire elementary school that plays hockey. You have to be seriously committed to the sport to play it in Texas. And this isn't an exception to the norm either. Baylor University has a club ice hockey team that practices on a roller rink because their home ice rink--the nearest one--is 88 miles away. Yeah. That's a real thing.

The league needs to take action on a few levels. First, when teams expand into new markets, future expansion fees should include fees for building youth hockey rinks in the respective markets. To the credit of the Dallas Stars organization, they've built, bought naming rights, or otherwise subsidized 8 youth hockey rinks in North Texas.

Still, that's 8 rinks for 6.5 million people in the DFW metroplex. Houston has five ice rinks--one of which is closing after this season. That's the fourth most populous city in the United States. Next year, that will be four rinks for 2.3 million people.

If you want to increase youth participation, you need to buy more rinks. There also needs to be a larger league investment in helping players who are financially disadvantaged. There are certainly youth hockey scholarships available (I wrote a letter of recommendation this summer for one of my players from last season for one), but a lot of parents aren't even aware that's an option. Even then, for parents who are aware, the scholarships are limited. There's no guarantee that you'll get a scholarship the following year. It's a difficult situation.

Even putting aside increasing participation in an effort to increase talent, the league and team owners need to look at youth hockey as a long-term investment in the league and their teams. The kids who grow up playing hockey translate into long-term fans of the sport as adults. They're the people buying tickets, watching hockey on TV, and buying team merchandise. They're the same people returning to the ice to coach the next generation. If you want to grow the sport, you need to literally grow the sport.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

3 hours ago, Hank said:

Quebec also failed previously. 

 

3 hours ago, Hawerchuk said:

While this is true, one could argue Quebec has a passion for hockey unlike the other three I mentioned.

 

2 hours ago, Hank said:

Without a doubt. Quebec has more hockey passion than all those cities combined!  Unfortunately, passion isn't enough. 

The fans are loyal and passionate as was the owner.

The team never had a loss, but the writing was on the wall - rising salaries and weak Canadian dollar doomed them.  The fact that they were the smallest market team  in North American sports (except for the Packers - close enough to Milwaukee) and a Francophone city.  Montreal had a large English Corporate base and still does, with English language TV, radio and newspapers.

Sadly, the above is why there is not likely to be an NHL team in Quebec City ever again.

[Brawndo]

Atlanta and Salt Lake City, if the latter doesn’t get the Coyotes first, will be the next two expansion cities most likely 

[CTJoe]

On 9/14/2023 at 7:52 PM, Night Train said:

Sabres were valued at 635 Mil a year ago. Arizona was at the bottom at 435 M.  

Actual revenue is a whole other story. Color me very skeptical. 

 

And what did Pegs by the team at?  $200m?  That's (a) a good tax write-off for what he has been losing and (b) a nice appreciation